Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

reply to post by NOTurTypical

. . . crucifying self . . .

When Jesus said to pick up your cross, I don't think he meant to crucify yourself.
I think that he meant to be prepared to be crucified for speaking the truth, as Jesus did, and was.
Since you are not providing any scripture to base your theory, I am forced to say that you are merely spouting the Free Grace party line, since there is nothing in the New Testament about a personal sanctification.
Jesus sanctified the church, and then one is allowed by grace to enter into it, meaning there is no requirement to obey the OT Law or to be of a particular tribe.
This is what I was talking about earlier of a slogan-based religion that is part of the pop-culture that inserts biblical sounding words but are rendered meaningless by their application which is merely spouting religious sounding theories.

reply to post by jmdewey60


I actually think when He said to pick up one's cross and follow Him it was metaphorical. Symbolic of saying to die to flesh and self, to live by the leading and guiding of the Holy Spirit. I didn't mean to leave you stranded with the implication that we are to literally nail ourselves to wood. I apologize for not making that clear.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

That's it, the gospel of grace.

Paul wrote 1 Corinthians before there existed things like the gospels of Matthew Mark Luke and John.
So there wasn't at the time an official term, the gospel, and it was just the word, message, so Paul was at that time only saying that his message, what he liked to emphasize specifically about Jesus, was about his being resurrected, before those books existed that said the same thing in their stories of the life of jesus.

edit on 8-8-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Well, "gospels" (plural) is just a term to refer to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. That doesn't mean there are competing and differing gospels (plural), there is only one gospel. Those books are actually titled "The Gospel According to Matthew", "The Gospel According to Mark", and so on and so forth. Even then, those are merely working titles because as you well know the originals were untitled literature. And yes, they are narratives about the life of Jesus, but those narratives are not the gospel. The gospel (good news) is that Christ died for our sins, He was buried, and He rose again the third day. That has been the Christian gospel for almost 2000 years.

You haven't shown yet what dictionary or concordance you accept for the definition of the theological terms "justification" and "sanctification".

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Well, please provide the Concordance or dictionary you use for the terms "Justification" and "Sanctification". I've shown that my comments are backed by a common and theological understanding of the terms.

I can give an example,
Romans 3:24
and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
(2011 NIV)
where the verb is δικαιόω, which means generally: "I make righteous", according to Strong's Concordance, along with some alternative meanings.
Danker's The Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament will give specific verses that are good examples for the different possible meanings, and for that verse, it is:

'put into a condition or state of uprightness'

There is another, similar word, δικαίωσις, which is the noun that comes from the verb that I mentioned above, that also gets translated as justification.
A good example of that word being used is in
Romans 4:25
He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.
(2011 NIV)
On the Bible Hub web site, they have several lexical type entries, one being Thayers, where the writer seems to be overcome by exuberance when he comments on that verse,

the act of God's declaring men free from guilt and acceptable to him; adjudging to be righteous, (A. V. justification): διά τήν δικαίωσιν ἡμῶν, because God wished to declare us righteous Romans 4:25;

Where in his commentary on Romans, Robert Jewett translates it as "righteousness", which is what fits the context.

As for sanctification, you just have to look at all the verses that have that word in it, and notice that it never is taking about it in relation to an individual, and always about a group, such as a church, or the church in general.

The point is that you don't realize how flimsy these theories are that you are taught until you go looking for verses to back them up.

reply to post by jmdewey60


How are those any different from what I said or copy/pasted? That justification is merely a legal judgment that declares a person not guilty or righteous. It doesn't make them righteous, just declares them so. And declares them so on Christ's merit, not our own.

As for sanctification, you just have to look at all the verses that have that word in it, and notice that it never is taking about in relation to an individual, and always about a group, such as a church, or the church in general.

That's not true, I can show verses where Paul is speaking of it on a homiletic level.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

How are those any different from what I said or copy/pasted?

The difference?
Maybe that is your problem, where you only have very fuzzy definitions for words, for example, your habit of using two words with a slash between them where it looks like you are not sure what they mean, but somewhere in the vicinity.

The root of the two Greek words (just the verb and the noun forms of basically the same thing) is "right", where people fully indoctrinated into the Free Grace cult probably think that the root is "to declare".

That justification is merely a legal judgment that declares a person not guilty or righteous. It doesn't make them righteous, just declares them so. And declares them so on Christ's merit, not our own.

Can you give a specific example of a verse that says that?
I just gave two which people like to imagine that it says that, and showed how it doesn't.

That's not true, I can show verses where Paul is speaking of it on a homiletic level.

What, in some fake book like Titus?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I actually think when He said to pick up one's cross and follow Him it was metaphorical. Symbolic of saying to die to flesh and self, to live by the leading and guiding of the Holy Spirit. I didn't mean to leave you stranded with the implication that we are to literally nail ourselves to wood. I apologize for not making that clear.

So you have these slogans that get repeated within your cult that sound religious or even vaguely biblical,
"crucifying self"
"die to flesh"
and it makes the cult members feel good, as if their self and their bodies are unimportant in the grand scheme of things, that those things will quickly and suddenly be discarded at the impending Rapture, as long as you keep this mental attitude that this life and what you do in it doesn't really matter.
All the while what the Bible is really trying to tell you is that Jesus died to establish a system where you can become righteous, not just in name but in reality, by living that life of righteousness that is offered by grace, by following the Faith that is granted to us, by God, in His Son.

reply to post by jmdewey60

So you have these slogans that get repeated within your cult that sound religious or even vaguely biblical,
"crucifying self"
"die to flesh"

You know, for several pages now I have been civil trying to have an adult-level dialogue with you. If you want to toss out arbitrary insults I'll just ignore you. I don't have a problem doing that. I was just using a simple metaphor.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Well, "gospels" (plural) is just a term to refer to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. That doesn't mean there are competing and differing gospels (plural), there is only one gospel.

I didn't try to say that they were competing gospels but their existence creates a competing definition for the word "gospel", something that did not exist when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians.

Those books are actually titled "The Gospel According to Matthew", "The Gospel According to Mark", and so on and so forth. Even then, those are merely working titles because as you well know the originals were untitled literature. And yes, they are narratives about the life of Jesus, but those narratives are not the gospel.

So you are claiming that the gospels are not gospels but are only examples of a crazy misuse of the word.

The gospel (good news) is that Christ died for our sins, He was buried, and He rose again the third day. That has been the Christian gospel for almost 2000 years.

OK, so when Jesus preached the gospel and sent his disciples to preach the gospel, that was only another misuse of the word?

You haven't shown yet what dictionary or concordance you accept for the definition of the theological terms "justification" and "sanctification".

What I am accepting is my reading of the Bible in an unbiased way, to see what it really says, free from all the Free Grace cult indoctrination that I was subjected to for about 40 years. I find confirmation of my reading in a milestone volume of the Hermeneia commentary series, the one on Romans that I mentioned in my post above, by the man who is now considered the leading expert on that theologically important book by Paul.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

. . . you want to toss out arbitrary insults . . .

If you properly understood the meaning of picking up your cross, you would immediately realize that you are not cut out for Christianity, that you were just going along for the ride, the one that is supposed to get you clear from persecution in the "tribulation" that you think is just for other people.
If you can't take some friendly criticism from a Christian, then I would hate to see how you would react to a real persecution.
Christianity is not for wimps and I find you an embarrassment to the name.
Which is to be expected, I guess, from a cult member in the free-ride cult.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Well, take care then.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

Well, take care then.

jmdewey60 is as the atheists. He worships human intelligence instead of God. When a man is so lost that he calls people being delivered from sin "satanic", there is no talking to them.

reply to post by truejew

. . . he calls people being delivered from sin "satanic" . . .

I don't know why you keep saying that when I never said anything even like that.

He worships human intelligence instead of God.

Intelligent enough to tell the difference between what the Bible says, and cult slogans.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by truejew

 

I don't know why you keep saying that when I never said anything even like that.

When people receive the Holy Spirit with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues, they are delivered from sin. Those with addictions are set free from their addictions. You call that satanic.

Originally posted by jmdewey60

Intelligent enough to tell the difference between what the Bible says, and cult slogans.

edit on 12-8-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Human intelligence saves no one. True understanding of the word comes through revelation by God, not human understanding, not human intelligence.

Paul wrote...

1 Corinthians 1:26-27 KJV
[26] For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called : [27] But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by truejew

 

I don't know why you keep saying that when I never said anything even like that.

When people receive the Holy Spirit with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues, they are delivered from sin.

Here is an example of the lunacy that ensues when you delude people into thinking that they've been "infused with the Holy Spirit":


You wanna worship in a circus, I say you go to Ringling Brothers the next time they're in town and say a prayer for those sad looking clowns.

Human intelligence saves no one. True understanding of the word comes through revelation by God, not human understanding, not human intelligence.

Stereotypical cult behaviour -- "turn off your brain, listen to what the pastor says, and he will save you."

If you actually used your God-given intelligence, you'd realize what a ridiculously wrong set of teachings you espouse.

By the way, I've noticed that your modus operandi is that when the thread dies down, you come back and make provocative statements in an effort to stir up a reaction against you. You're a troll, TJ -- what "fruits of the spirit" does your craving for attention demonstrate?

In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. (Source)

reply to post by truejew

You call that satanic.

No, I didn't.

True understanding of the word comes through revelation by God, not human understanding, not human intelligence.

However it is arrived at, the end result is understanding.

Paul wrote...

1 Corinthians 1:26-27 KJV
[26] For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called : [27] But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

That doesn't have anything to do with the point that you are trying to make.

My point is that you have people who put themselves into the position of leaders, who are preachers or whatever in what you may classify as a "church", who make out that they have special knowledge, and so their word overrides the "word of God" (as many people who are Christians think of the Bible) and so give slogans to the members, with their personal recommendation as to their validity based on themselves somehow being the authority, going beyond Jesus' own Apostles who wrote the New Testament.
Being able to recognize this as what is going on in what I call cults, is not a claim to any sort of unusual intelligence, but the ability to discern the difference between right and wrong, which may be helped by nearly sixty years as a Christian.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by truejew

 

No, I didn't.

Your claim that speaking in tongues is satanic and makes a group a cult, does say that.

Originally posted by jmdewey60

However it is arrived at, the end result is understanding.

You have insulted people's intelligence in your recent posts. Intelligence and understanding are two different things.

Originally posted by jmdewey60

My point is that you have people who put themselves into the position of leaders, who are preachers or whatever in what you may classify as a "church", who make out that they have special knowledge, and so their word overrides the "word of God" (as many people who are Christians think of the Bible) and so give slogans to the members, with their personal recommendation as to their validity based on themselves somehow being the authority, going beyond Jesus' own Apostles who wrote the New Testament.
Being able to recognize this as what is going on in what I call cults, is not a claim to any sort of unusual intelligence, but the ability to discern the difference between right and wrong, which may be helped by nearly sixty years as a Christian.

Your accusation that that goes on in the Church is incorrect.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by truejew

 

Stereotypical cult behaviour -- "turn off your brain, listen to what the pastor says, and he will save you."

I did not say that. I said that revelation is by God, through the word of God. It is not by human intelligence (their iq) and reading "scholars" opinions. I find it interesting that your church teaches "turn off your brain, listen to what the pope says, and the pope will save you."

Originally posted by jmdewey60

By the way, I've noticed that your modus operandi is that when the thread dies down, you come back and make provocative statements in an effort to stir up a reaction against you. You're a troll, TJ -- what "fruits of the spirit" does your craving for attention demonstrate?

In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. (Source)

My point in my post was in defense of NOTurTypical. Actually, I think you are the troll.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by truejew

 

Stereotypical cult behaviour -- "turn off your brain, listen to what the pastor says, and he will save you."

I did not say that. I said that revelation is by God, through the word of God.

And what is the process by which that discernment takes place? By being a mindless zombie, listening to the revelations of the cult leader? Or by examining the text and using one's own intelligence, given by God, to understand what it's about?

I find it interesting that your church teaches "turn off your brain, listen to what the pope says, and the pope will save you."

That is not what the Roman Catholic church teaches. What "fruits of the spirit" does your lying demonstrate?

My point in my post was in defense of NOTurTypical.

No, your point in posting to a thread that had been quiet for a few days was to name call someone in the hopes that he would respond to you. Mission accomplished.

reply to post by truejew

Your claim that speaking in tongues is satanic and makes a group a cult, does say that.

No, I didn't say that.
I think that if there was any "satanic" sort of thing going on, it would be in the mind of the cult leader who is misleading people into believing that something which is a normal physical phenomenon is somehow "being baptized in the spirit".

You have insulted people's intelligence in your recent posts. Intelligence and understanding are two different things.

I was saying that some people have an inability to understand metaphor.
This is something normal in children and does not mean they are not intelligent, it is just that they have not developed that ability yet. What I was suggesting was that in some people, that ability never develops, and is what I think is the reason why you find posters on this forum arguing about whatever, because they have this very literal interpretation and think everyone who sees things metaphorically are just lying.

Your accusation that that goes on in the Church is incorrect.

Why would you think that I was talking about your church?
I think you are for some reason taking personally things that I was saying about NOTurTypical's church.